Hmm, When was the last time the UK was inundated by a tsunami caused by an underwater earthquake of 9.0 magnitude. (this was the ultimate cause of the Fukushima disaster) When was the last time a nuclear reactor in the UK suffered a catastrophic meltdown if it's fuel core?
Greenpeace: Arctic 30
- Thread starter securespark
- Start date
Hmm, When was the last time the UK was inundated by a tsunami caused by an underwater earthquake of 9.0 magnitude. (this was the ultimate cause of the Fukushima disaster) When was the last time a nuclear reactor in the UK suffered a catastrophic meltdown if it's fuel core?
Sponsored Links
Ah, that'll be why we didn't have the windscale nuclear leak then...
And the new design has nothing to do with being 'british'...french/chinese designed and funded in case you haven't kept up with the news!
Assuming you're not a dodgy character, would you take any kid there or allow anyone to do so?
yes or no seems to be such a tricky option on here, but how about you break the mould...
I been in a nuclear power station as a kid(Torness) also live beside one at Hartlepool.
I would love to visit Chernobyl. would take my kids if I had any... would only take them to were it was safe though.
nuclear power is safe. the problem is people have a very difficult time judging risk. the MMR jab being a classic example were they put their kids in much more danger to avoided a small possible risk(a made up risk in the end).
retire old reactors and build new reactors...simple
I would love to visit Chernobyl. would take my kids if I had any... would only take them to were it was safe though.
nuclear power is safe. the problem is people have a very difficult time judging risk. the MMR jab being a classic example were they put their kids in much more danger to avoided a small possible risk(a made up risk in the end).
retire old reactors and build new reactors...simple
Sponsored Links
Always the same old kop out...
"I'd take kids there but only it were safe"...
No-one has yet agreed that it is safe, so no-one has the balls to say they would be happy to put their kids at risk!
pmsl...
The next generation nuclear plant is to be funded by the world's largest sweat shop country...
Any guesses as to where the profit lines lie?
At least you acknowledge that 'british' designs were a f*ck up...So what guarantee do we have of the 'cheese' (or is that chalk) being any safer?
Still waiting to hear if anyone would recommend taking kids (whether they are their own or not) to the chernobyl/fukishima exclusion zones...
Now why is that?...
The next generation nuclear plant is to be funded by the world's largest sweat shop country...
Any guesses as to where the profit lines lie?
At least you acknowledge that 'british' designs were a f*ck up...So what guarantee do we have of the 'cheese' (or is that chalk) being any safer?
Still waiting to hear if anyone would recommend taking kids (whether they are their own or not) to the chernobyl/fukishima exclusion zones...
Now why is that?...
Studies show that Global Warming is a threat to "future Generations" ...... So what,, What have future generations ever done for me?
A minor event. Google it.
French designed, actually (the Chinks are just paying for it). And remember that the Frogs have been running many of their own reactors without incident. It pains me to say it, but I trust them.
Assuming you're not a dodgy character, would you take any kid there or allow anyone to do so?
yes or no seems to be such a tricky option on here, but how about you break the mould...
It honestly wouldn't bother me, although I'd seek advice from authorities I could trust about safe distances. (Unlike Joe, I don't claim to know everything about everything!)
Global Warming is a global issue. The clue is in the name. We need low carbon technology if we want to maintain our lifestyle.And there I was thinking we were talking about energy requirements in this country in this topic, and how we satisfy our own energy needs...
Of course we 'offshore' production (although that is likely to reverse), but then maybe you ought to be lecturing the chinese about their economy rather than encouraging on us a dangerous energy generating source!
I pointed out that energy efficiency will not solve the issue. Using energy efficiency to help solve our own energy needs is short sighted, and unreliable. It has often been foudn to be ineffective on national levels, with Government initiatives been far less effective than forcecast.
As I said, I would take my kids to Chernobyl, as others here have said.
And I would take them to parts of the Fukushima area, such as the village nearby.
There has been a distinct lack of rational monitoring and reporting. A quick google should tell you this. I speak as someone who works in environmental management, and do a great deal of monitoring. There are some useful reports, but most are just fearmongering.
Lets take a look at some areas where one should visit:
The anti-nuke crowd should be ashamed:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/03/18/fukushima-fear-is-still-the-killer/
But lets try to remember, that Fukushima is not nearly as bad as Chernobyl is severity, and both incidents involved plants that were outdated, in terms of safety measures and designs. That they were up to date when they were bult is irrelevant. The UK is not at risk from major earthquakes or tsunamis, and modern reactors are far more passive safety systems than older models.
The appropriate question is: Would I live near a modern reactor with my family? Yes.
In fact others have similar views. When a French plant was being planned, teh local town asked for it to be built nearer, to save on commuting.
And in the UK, house prices only went down near a nuclear plant when they built a wind farm near by.
I would certainly eat Pacific fish:
http://chriskresser.com/fukushima-seafood
They are even able to sell the stuff caught off the Japanese coast:
http://boingboing.net/2013/09/26/fish-caught-offshore-from-fuku.html
And the PM ate some:
http://www.japantoday.com/category/...port-in-fukushima-eats-locally-caught-seafood
As ever wobs, a cop out by deliberately including caveats...
safe areas/non safe areas?...(so there's your argument about there are no problems gone up in smoke)
rational monitoring/reporting?...so whose reports/monitoring would you accept?
I bet the residents of chenobyl and fukishima thought the same about their 'modern reactors'...the hindsight you use is such a remarkeable thing isn't it...
And still no answer of course as to whether you'd allow kids to eat anything grown in the exclusion zones...you merely quote 'safe distances' which is in itself an admission of health risks...
You are obviously pig ignorant of one important indisputable fact...
Anything man made is at risk of accidents!
(and also fyi, the uk is at risk of a tsunami...google is your friend )
So we just carry on consuming more energy regardless?...What a f*cked up view you have!
safe areas/non safe areas?...(so there's your argument about there are no problems gone up in smoke)
rational monitoring/reporting?...so whose reports/monitoring would you accept?
Ah, so you want to pick and choose which type of reactor and the location then....
I bet the residents of chenobyl and fukishima thought the same about their 'modern reactors'...the hindsight you use is such a remarkeable thing isn't it...
And still no answer of course as to whether you'd allow kids to eat anything grown in the exclusion zones...you merely quote 'safe distances' which is in itself an admission of health risks...
You are obviously pig ignorant of one important indisputable fact...
Anything man made is at risk of accidents!
(and also fyi, the uk is at risk of a tsunami...google is your friend
)Says who...apart from you of course!
So we just carry on consuming more energy regardless?...What a f*cked up view you have!
More emotive language:
As I have said more than once, I am willing to go any of these places. Fukushima currently has areas that are deemed unsafe, but others that should be deemed safe but fear and the antinuke crowd have caused a too cautious approach, leading to far more harm. As I have shown more than once. I am more than willing to go to these places with my kids.
I would accept either my own monitoring, or others who are qualified. Not the media, not green groups, or any other antinuke group who try to convince us that its all a disaster. Try to remember how many have actually died from the incident.
I have yet to see you explain why this is in any way relevant to new nuclear in the UK.
Why would you even ask about something that isn't been considered?
You seem to think that a nuclear plant is the most dangerous thing we use. It isn't, not by a long shot. I have already shown it is the safest of the energy sources we are looking at.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsunamis_affecting_the_British_Isles
Compare with the one that hit Fukushima (an outdated reactor), and you see there is no comparison. We are not in danger of an earthquake of that magnitude, and the ones listed above were tiny in comparison.
Even if one did hit (which it wouldn't), a new plant would have to be designed to not suffer the same fate, and shutdown safely.
Before the tsunami, the risk was mentioned elsewhere in the world: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission warned a risk on losing emergency power 20 years ago (NUREG-1150) and NISA referred the report in 2004.
Plants all over the world have since been reviewed and future builds will have to be designed to account for this, so I fail to see your point.
What risk do you refer to? If you are basing it on fear alone, you have no argument.
Energy efficiency improves the quality of life. Why would we not strive to do that? But lets not blind ourselves to the reality of those actions.
I'am not the only who says this, as I have already linked to Jevons Paradox, but here is another article:
http://energycentral.fileburst.com/EnergyBizOnline/2008-3-may-jun/Tech_Front_Khazzoom.pdf
We need low carbon technology, and nuclear must be part of the mix.
Edit: I should add, that as I said earlier, energy efficiency measures can only work with some kind of carbon tax, or some other economic limiting factor.
A good article claiming similar here:
http://ukercsparks.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/wpid-jan-2011-10-24-17-19.pdf
More strawman arguments.
As I have said more than once, I am willing to go any of these places. Fukushima currently has areas that are deemed unsafe, but others that should be deemed safe but fear and the antinuke crowd have caused a too cautious approach, leading to far more harm. As I have shown more than once. I am more than willing to go to these places with my kids.
I would accept either my own monitoring, or others who are qualified. Not the media, not green groups, or any other antinuke group who try to convince us that its all a disaster. Try to remember how many have actually died from the incident.
I have yet to see you explain why this is in any way relevant to new nuclear in the UK.
It is a far more appropriate question. I advocate new nuclear builds in the UK. Would I live next to one? Yes.
Why would you even ask about something that isn't been considered?
Once again you ignore the point that both plants had known flaws. Especially Chernobyl. You ignore that Chernobyl cannot happen to a modern reactor.I bet the residents of chenobyl and fukishima thought the same about their 'modern reactors'...the hindsight you use is such a remarkeable thing isn't it...
Parts of the area of Fukushima area are unsafe at the moment. This will not always be the case. Thats the great thing about radiation: it diminishes with time.And still no answer of course as to whether you'd allow kids to eat anything grown in the exclusion zones...you merely quote 'safe distances' which is in itself an admission of health risks...
Irrelevant. You need to look at risk and what it actually means. Would you rather live in the dark ages? Would you ban cars or planes or cigs which are all more dangerous.
You seem to think that a nuclear plant is the most dangerous thing we use. It isn't, not by a long shot. I have already shown it is the safest of the energy sources we are looking at.
Something I have looked into in the past. I hoped you would have had the sense to actually read up on the subject properly before claiming that. But this page points to the incredibly low risk this poses:(and also fyi, the uk is at risk of a tsunami...google is your friend
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsunamis_affecting_the_British_Isles
Compare with the one that hit Fukushima (an outdated reactor), and you see there is no comparison. We are not in danger of an earthquake of that magnitude, and the ones listed above were tiny in comparison.
Even if one did hit (which it wouldn't), a new plant would have to be designed to not suffer the same fate, and shutdown safely.
Before the tsunami, the risk was mentioned elsewhere in the world: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission warned a risk on losing emergency power 20 years ago (NUREG-1150) and NISA referred the report in 2004.
Plants all over the world have since been reviewed and future builds will have to be designed to account for this, so I fail to see your point.
What risk do you refer to? If you are basing it on fear alone, you have no argument.
Oh, more insults. Erm, is that meant to lend weight to something?
Energy efficiency improves the quality of life. Why would we not strive to do that? But lets not blind ourselves to the reality of those actions.
I'am not the only who says this, as I have already linked to Jevons Paradox, but here is another article:
http://energycentral.fileburst.com/EnergyBizOnline/2008-3-may-jun/Tech_Front_Khazzoom.pdf
We need low carbon technology, and nuclear must be part of the mix.
Edit: I should add, that as I said earlier, energy efficiency measures can only work with some kind of carbon tax, or some other economic limiting factor.
A good article claiming similar here:
http://ukercsparks.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/wpid-jan-2011-10-24-17-19.pdf
Sponsored Links
